riccibruno added inline comments.
================ Comment at: include/clang/Basic/Sanitizers.h:29 +class hash_code; +} ---------------- pgousseau wrote: > riccibruno wrote: > > What ? You are forward-declaring `hash_code` here and using it as a value a > > few lines later. Just include `llvm/ADT/Hashing.h`. > Thanks for reviewing! > I am happy to include `Hashing.h` but I thought it was generally frown upon > to add includes if avoidable? > `hash_code` is only used in the return type of the `hash_value()` declaration > here no? > I saw StringRef.h or APInt.h also forward declare `hash_code`. > Thanks again for reviewing and sorry for the many iterations. Never mind, I overlooked that it is only the declaration of `llvm::hash_code hash_value(const clang::SanitizerMask &Arg);` and not the definition. Sorry about that. I believe that is it correct to have the overload of `hash_value` in the namespace `clang`, so that it can be found by ADL since `SanitizerMask` is in `clang`. However you can probably move the declaration of `llvm::hash_code hash_value(const clang::SanitizerMask &Arg);` just after `SanitizerMask` so that you don't have to forward-declare `SanitizerMask` (but keep the forward-declaration of `hash_code` in `llvm`). CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D57914/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D57914 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
